Ah, there in lies the rub.
I find this surprising. The issue was a high profile one for a very long time. You really
did not make the connection because I said Subversion instead of cvs? And does it really
matter if the server it took them nearly 4 years to set up was cvs or subversion?
Also opening up existing infrastructure that has existed for over a decade within a
organization and in many cases rewriting it to be community facing is a entirely different
ball game from merely setting up a cvs repository.
That was the party line during most of that time. I will agree that this is a somewhat
different situation. But not for the party-line reason you restate here. Red Hat did not
really want to open up Fedora that much. They felt they had too much riding on it for that.
(I remember a Red Hat official even coming close to saying it in so many words.) In this case,
Red Hat also likely has a keen self interest, and are likely to want to get the servers up as
soon as possible.
BTW, that is not intended to come off as anti Red Hat. I greatly respect Red Hat. But the
low priority foot dragging was pretty obvious. You can bet that if "opening up existing
infrastructure that has existed for over a decade within a organization" had been perceived as
critical to the RHEL product, they could have done it in a matter of months if not less.